Daniel Negreanu - will you ever win again?

I find it amazing with these pros. They win a few tournaments. Become real famous. Get lots of endorsement opportunities and then can never win again. Something seems wrong with the 'superstar status' in poker. It almost doesn't seem to be a real notion - the 'poker superstar'.

Daniel Negreanu was one such superstar. Forget about winning an event. He can not even cash in anymore. He only survives becasue of all his endorsements, tv appearances, dvd's, games that he is creating. But as far as being a winning tournament player anymore, it doesn't look that way.

But i think it really has to do with the myth of being a poker superstar. You win a tournament or two and you instantly gain superstar status. But is that realy correct? Perhaps the short term luck factor is making players seem more like superstars than they really are. And perhaps no one is really a superstar. A few come close, such as phil ivy, johhny chan, ted forrest, kathy liebert.

But in general the poker superstar is a myth and Daniel Negreanu is a prime example.

Daniel, do you think you will ever win a tournament again?

[troymclur]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amazing with these pros. They win a few tournaments. Become real famous. Get lots of endorsement opportunities and then can never win again. Something seems wrong with the 'superstar status' in poker. It almost doesn't seem to be a real notion - the 'poker superstar'.

Daniel Negreanu was one such superstar. Forget about winning an event. He can not even cash in anymore. He only survives becasue of all his endorsements, tv appearances, dvd's, cashgames that he is beating. But as far as being a winning tournament player anymore, it doesn't look that way.

But i think it really has to do with the myth of being a poker superstar. You win a tournament or two and you instantly gain superstar status. But is that realy correct? Perhaps the short term luck factor is making players seem more like superstars than they really are. And perhaps no one is really a superstar. A few come close, such as phil ivy, johhny chan, ted forrest, kathy liebert.

But in general the poker superstar is a myth and Daniel Negreanu is a prime example.

Daniel, do you think you will ever win a tournament again?

[/ QUOTE ]

[sublyme]

yes

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
But i think it really has to do with the myth of being a poker superstar. You win a tournament or two and you instantly gain superstar status. But is that realy correct? Perhaps the short term luck factor is making players seem more like superstars than they really are. And perhaps no one is really a superstar.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're onto something here

His ability to win tournaments is starting to look like a fluke these days. Probably a combination of his playing style becoming very well known, larger tournament fields, his recent marriage, and numerous outside projects.

I would guess he will not win another major tournament until at least 2007.

[D.H.]

[ QUOTE ]
But i think it really has to do with the myth of being a poker superstar. You win a tournament or two and you instantly gain superstar status.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. But Daniel Negreanu is not a good example of it. Not even close.

Daniel is obviously good enough to win tournaments. He just needs to focus more on playing good poker. When he's on his game, he's damn good. But he hasn't been on his game lately. Too much other stuff going on in his life.

[jackblack73]

Yeah, you're right. He just got lucky. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/rank.php?a=r&n=1

That's a terrible argument, since Joe Hachem is first on that list for winning ONE major tournament.

[jackblack73]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a terrible argument, since Joe Hachem is first on that list for winning ONE major tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're just making my point for me since Negreanu did NOT win any one huge tournament. Even if you take out his WPT wins, he's up around $4MM. How can anyone say that someone that's won that much isn't a good tournament player?

[Kaeser]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a terrible argument, since Joe Hachem is first on that list for winning ONE major tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

better argument? (http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=181)

He's done good in '05 placing 3rd in a 10K and 4th in a 20K tournament. This isn't chess your not going to see one player winning every tournament.

[blumpkin22]

Post Deleted - Dids

[Aceshigh7]

In my opinion, Daniel has more pure poker talent than almost any player not named Phil Ivey. However, he has lost his focus and drive for poker and that explains his lack of results.

He will get it back eventually, I have no doubt. It may take a couple of years, and it may take him taking a break from the game for awhile to get that drive back.

With the commercial opportunities available to him, I just don't see him seriously focusing on playing poker like he used to for awhile.

Daniel is smart. He saw what Phil Hellmuth was doing in terms of marketing himself and exploring other money making opportunities. You can make much more money through creating and marketing your brand than playing poker. It's to be expected that his poker results would drop off ala Phil Hellmuth once he made that concentrated decision to switch his focus. In the long run, he will be a much richer man for it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's a terrible argument, since Joe Hachem is first on that list for winning ONE major tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

better argument? (http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=181)

He's done good in '05 placing 3rd in a 10K and 4th in a 20K tournament. This isn't chess your not going to see one player winning every tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. Much better.

I wasn't disagreeing with the other poster's point of view, but his "evidence" was basically meaningless.

[wadea]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you're right. He just got lucky. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/rank.php?a=r&n=1

[/ QUOTE ]

On this page, click on Daniel's name and look down his list of tournament results. 11-Dec-03: He takes 4th in a $2500 buy-in event and gets paid HOW MUCH? Somebody confirm that this is a typo.

Threads like this are rediculous. He won two 10k+ buy-in events and took third in another in 2004. He was WSOP POY. What some of you saying about losing his focus may have some merit, but he was the best player in the world in 2004 as far as tourneys are concerned. When there are 400+ players in every tourney and you play a high variance style like Daniel, you will have bad stretches. Remember, he is not playing to sneak into the money, so that explains why so few cashes.

bro check it out the guy above him got 33k and below him like 18k so im guessing its probably more like 20k huuuuuuuuup

[MCS]

He's written some really good strategy stuff.

[jackblack73]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's a terrible argument, since Joe Hachem is first on that list for winning ONE major tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

better argument? (http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=181)

He's done good in '05 placing 3rd in a 10K and 4th in a 20K tournament. This isn't chess your not going to see one player winning every tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. Much better.

I wasn't disagreeing with the other poster's point of view, but his "evidence" was basically meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're kidding right? You couldn't be bothered to click Negreanu's name yourself? Pathetic.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

Man what a loser, he hasn't won a major tournament in 364 days.

[DHamilton97]

Well he doesn't play any small tournaments anymore as they mean nothing and he can't focus on them enough when the first place prize isn't really worth it in many of the 1k or 2k buyins. These tournament fields are HUUUUGE. Lots of these 10k tournaments these days now have 400-500 people at least. Pretty hard making it to the final 6 or 9 of these. Without a doubt he's involved with other business dealings that probably does distract him from playing. He's a very smart person to get on the business side of these dealings. So is Hellmuth. Hellmuth says he's the best etc, we know he isn't and isn't close. But he will make more $ with all his [censored] he has out ( I really can't stand most of it but hey there gonna sell ) than you could ever make at the green felt. Also when you play in a cash game that high, it's hard to take a lot of tournaments seriously. It's just like playing a 2/4 or 3/6 NL game and then entering a 30-50 dollar buyin tournament. Your not going to be as hungry as you would if you were playing in a .25/.50 cent game. I admit I am getting tired of reading his blog lately. All his non poker [censored] he writes isn't exciting. I wish more of the highest limit players would write a blog about there experiences in that game.

[D. B. Murdock]

Negreanu had made more money in poker tournaments than most players will ever make in their careers and your doubting him. It's poker, he could go a couple years on a bad run, that still wouldn't put any doubt that he will continue to dominate poker tournaments throughout his career.

And Phil Hellmuth is not even close to being the best?... Just look at his record. When it comes to NL Hold'em tournaments, Hellmuth is easily one of the best in history, despite how much the guy bitches on suckouts.

[billyjex]

I feel dumber for having read this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's a terrible argument, since Joe Hachem is first on that list for winning ONE major tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

better argument? (http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=181)

He's done good in '05 placing 3rd in a 10K and 4th in a 20K tournament. This isn't chess your not going to see one player winning every tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. Much better.

I wasn't disagreeing with the other poster's point of view, but his "evidence" was basically meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're kidding right? You couldn't be bothered to click Negreanu's name yourself? Pathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about it. If his original intention was to refer to Negreanu's cashes, he would've done so. But he didn't, he referred to an all time money list. Pathetic.

[jackblack73]

You're truly a moron. First of all, his intention, was my intention. I posted the all time money list because I wanted to show his total cashes. When I first referred to it I had no idea he was number 2 on the list. When you looked at that list, did you really believe the bulk of his cashes came in only one or two events? Were you really too lazy to actually click on his name and see what his cashes were comprised of? Do you really need to be spoon fed, or do you have any logical reasoning skills? You're completely incapable of logical thought.

[ QUOTE ]
You're truly a moron. First of all, his intention, was my intention. I posted the all time money list because I wanted to show his total cashes. When I first referred to it I had no idea he was number 2 on the list. When you looked at that list, did you really believe the bulk of his cashes came in only one or two events? Were you really too lazy to actually click on his name and see what his cashes were comprised of? Do you really need to be spoon fed, or do you have any logical reasoning skills? You're completely incapable of logical thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is that you make assumptions. Your argument is like me giving a like to wikipedia, and saying, "find the information yourself."

I hope your sad attempts at berating someone over the Internet brightens up your day.

[jackblack73]

Yes, I assumed someone would actually look at my original post and use their brain a little bit. How you could possibly read that post and say it was "meaningless"? Are you completely incapable of independent thought?

[willie]

yeah, i'd say he'll win another

and i can't even create a set time for it, he's a damn fine player but it takes a lot of luck and skill to get through these tournies... and a stretch w/out a gigantic win is to be expected.

Your "evidence" was meaningless.

If you still can't get that through your thick head, stop, breathe, read it again, formulate a rational thought, and then post.

Anyways, I'm out. If you want to continue posting like a moron, enjoy. But I'm not going to stay around all night to keep your tiny brain company.

[jackblack73]

It's meaningless to post the amount a poker player has won in tournament play in order to show that he's a good tournament player? You're a bright one aren't you.

[ QUOTE ]
It's meaningless to post the amount a poker player has won in tournament play in order to show that he's a good tournament player? You're a bright one aren't you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wise one, you're right, Joe Hachem is the best tournament player in the world according to your great logic.

Now I bid you farewell, as I go talk to World Champions and tournament millionaires Robert Varkonyi and Chris Moneymaker for private poker lessons, so I can destroy Phil Ivey.

Moron.

[jackblack73]

See,there you go again refusing to use any independent thought. It's obvious to anyone with a relatively basic knowledge of poker and the WSOP that the bulk of Hachem's earnings are from one event. It's also obvious to anyone that knows a bit about poker that Negreanu's earnings are comprised of more than just one event and, in fact, he has been a professional for a decent amount of time. And if it weren't obvious...oh, lookey, you can click on their names and actually see what their tournament results look like. You're either lazy or dense.

I hope you're enjoying wasting my time as much I as am enjoying wasting your time. Your futile attempt at arguing is amusing!

[jackblack73]

I find it hilarious that you keep saying you're going to leave but you won't.

[palman]

What is is it about 2+2ers and their inability to spot parody posters? Vince riles most of you up for like a year and you still bite.

[DHamilton97]

[ QUOTE ]
And Phil Hellmuth is not even close to being the best?... Just look at his record. When it comes to NL Hold'em tournaments, Hellmuth is easily one of the best in history, despite how much the guy bitches on suckouts.

[/ QUOTE ] NLHE tournaments is 1 game out of many. He is a great player in NLHE tournaments. But as for other games and cash games, he's nothing special at all.

ANYONE WINNING A TOURNAMENT TAKES A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF LUCK!!! EVERYONE WHO HAS WON A BIG TOURNAMENT HAS GOTTEN VERY VERY VERY LUCKY. YOU GUYS DONT REASON TOO WELL. AND THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WHO WIN TOURNAMENTS GET ENDORSEMENT DEALS AND BECOME FAMOUS ONLY BECAUSE THEY GOT LUCKY CARE THAT THEY ARE NOW FAMOUS BECAUSE OF PURE DUMB RANDOM LUCK? PEOPLE IN THE POKER BUSINESS NEED FACES AND NAMES TO PROMOTE POKER, FROM THE CASINOS, CARDPLAYER.COM, ONLINE POKER SITES, BOOK PUBLISHERS, ETc...ALL NEED FACES FOR POKER. AND THE PLAYERS SELF PROMOTE THEMSELVES TOO. IT'S [censored]. BUT WHO CARES? $ is THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY MATTERS. YOU KIDS NEED TO SMARTEN UP AND STOP POSTING ALL THESE DUMB THREADS.

But yet you always seems to find my posts. I seem to have a fan. How is it that you found my post in this category? Thank you for your continued support.

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
he could go a couple years on a bad run, that still wouldn't put any doubt that he will continue to dominate poker tournaments throughout his career.



[/ QUOTE ]


ok, lets not get me wrong here, but he hasnt been focused on winning poker for around 7-9 months now. Instead its been side stunts and publicity to make more out of his new found fourtune in just his namesake. poker has been a side project not the main event in his life. I hope that it will change in the future but his mind is certainly not focused on poker. he is an incredible talented player but without focus even the best cant produce. for some reason he is still out in the public looking for either more money or more acceptance, but his focus is certainly no where near what a real professional of his calliber should be at(phil ivey's league which he certainly isnt even close to that sort of focus right now) in short , he has the talent but certainly not the desire he once had.


there should prabable be a paragragh in there somewher but I dont give a [censored] right now.

One of my main points of my post was to dispel the myth of the 'Poker Superstar'. I was using Daniel as just an example of what I was talking about.

What do people think about that myth?

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[ChuckyB]

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel is smart. He saw what Phil Hellmuth was doing in terms of marketing himself and exploring other money making opportunities. You can make much more money through creating and marketing your brand than playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Diversify and make even more millions while poker is white-hot. Then get back to full-time ass kicking.

[Niediam]

It's amazing how little 2+2ers seem to understand varience in poker.

The best NLHE tournament player (whoever that is) could play in a 10k buyin event every single week and not end up winning one for YEARS.

[Rushmore]

I have never posted this as a response before, but...

This thread is abysmally bad.

[Salva135]

I have to say, I somewhat agree with the OP, except that his isolation of DN to prove his point is incredibly unfair. Poker has come so far so quickly that we've already reached the point where we start to think about poker similar to how we think about other sports, with superstars who dominate others regularly, in competitions that define their superstars status.

But poker isn't like a mainstream sport. We don't necessarily expect it, but we somehow want to believe that the very best in the game will consistently take down major tournies and have high finishes for years on end, so we can root for them over and over and over and be happy to see our "idols" at the top. When a really good player goes on a heater and wins a few in a short span of time, we want to believe that he/she can continue to do so, and are inevitably disappointed when they start busting out left and right. They don't have the consistency of our superstars in the NFL, NBA, etc., and it annoys us.

Yes, there are poker superstars, but our expectations of what qualifies them as such are impossibly unrealistic. DN is a poker superstar along with countless others, but we need to learn to ratchet down our expectations of them and realize what a great poker career truly consists of.

[blumpkin22]

Deleted - Dids

If Negreanu doent qualify as a "Tournement Poker Superstar" who is?

[B Dids]

This thread is really dumb and I'm locking it.

Also: The tone in this thread sucks. If people can't have a discussion without tossing around insults and acting like asses, suspensions and bannings will abound.